Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

The centre-left's divine right: The arrogance of Justin Trudeau's Liberals

The Liberal party’s operational code has always been in simplicity itself: to govern Canada by striking the most marketable balance between elitism and egalitarianism. They labelled it the New Liberalism, and pretended that anybody called Trudeau could win.

Not bloody likely, it turns out.

In his jolting run for Grit Heaven, the Trudeau named Justin has been campaigning and getting into hot water by promising as little as possible but as much as necessary. Young Justin’s evolving platform treats voters as commodities to be harvested—like having the concession for blow-up balloons at a county fair.

His tendency to swing between political immaturity and ideological laissez-faire hasn’t caught on, because it’s based solely on his current situation of waiting impatiently to take his turn in power—without earning it. That only worked in a two-party system, never with three. In 2011, the Grits were pushed, for the first time ever, into political purgatory, where the also-runners shudder and hide, pretending that a recount might be in the cards. The youthful Trudeau has had to fall back on his inherited tendency to see himself as a natural heir of the haughty attitudes that once characterized the divine right of kings, especially Mackenzie Kings.

His campaign has been a backward march. Liberals still harbour the petulant assumption that they alone know what’s good for Canadians, and that it’s just plain dumb to vote for any other party—except as occasional comic relief. It’s comic relief, all right, but at the expense of what used to be called the Government Party.

I first became aware of their institutionalized arrogance when, as an Ottawa columnist for Maclean’s, I found myself researching a profile of Jack Pickersgill, then a senior Liberal minister in the Pearson government. “It is not merely for the well-being of Canadians, but for the good of mankind in general, that the present Liberal government should remain in office,” Pickersgill told me with a straight face. He had been a history major at Oxford, and I naively thought some book learnin’ might have rubbed off on him. It was not to be. Just like Justin, he viewed the Liberal party not as an organ of the people, but as an organ of state. Like it or not, Justin is heir to the hothouse attitude that, by accepting the burdens of office, Canada’s Liberals are bestowing a welcome benefaction on the nation at large.

That was the formula for Liberal longevity, and still is. Arrogance is as arrogance does. That was certainly true for the Liberal party under Louis St. Laurent, Mike Pearson, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin—and particularly so under Pierre Trudeau—but also an integral part of young Justin’s inherited catechism. Familiarity ought to breed consent, and the advent of a new leadership should not, as the British essayist Havelock Ellis once complained, “merely be the exchange of one nuisance for another.” Canada’s most serious dilemma during the extended terms of Liberal dominance was not the calamitous state of our health care system, not the tragic joke called our Armed Forces, not our uneven, counterproductive tax structure, nor the insanely high price of freestanding housing. It was the growing and almost universal disbelief among Canadians that anything of substance—permanently beneficial—could be achieved through political manoeuvring.

That has been the deadly legacy of Liberal regimes. They would never admit to even considering such heresy, but their previous near-monopoly of federal power eventually undermined the efficacy of the democratic system. It was this subliminal threat that originally allowed Stephen Harper to seize power.

The big shift by the NDP was establishing its capacity to field French and English MPs with grace and substance in the House of Commons. That makes them the players to beat. The Orange Army originally attracted to the NDP’s coattails as a lark hung in, and is now dug in. Great expectations to the contrary, I once described Tom Mulcair—when he was still sporting that originally straggly beard—as looking like the kind of intimidating presence mothers hired to ensure the kids finished their spinach. I badly underestimated him, just as I badly overestimated how much of Harper’s clout was disposable. His ruthless manner leaves little doubt about the rumour being true that his cabinet ministers have to ask permission to sneeze. He is not a leader; he is a drill sergeant.

Justin’s most politically damaging decision was to publicly fire from his caucus all the senators and party veterans. They demanded nothing more than reassurance that their presence still counted for something. By cutting them off, Trudeau deprived himself of useful wisdom and freely available loyalties.

It was as if the once unbeatable Liberals were allowing themselves to be guided deeper into the political wilderness, led by a name instead of a leader. A good argument can be made that Justin Trudeau was an agent of change. A better argument can be made that he will be its first victim.

I agree with you totally on both questions about this author. Some of these authors think they have this gift of telepathy, when really they hate to be proven wrong, because it rattles their egos. This guy is a washed up writer. And like a lot of other writers and the media have this creepy obsession with Trudeau, and trying to bring the liberal party down, they have no other objectives other than write diatribes and hope voters soak up their kool aid. CBC are out again today doing a election promotion for the NDP, It never lets up with the CBC and the NDP. No wonder Harper wants to dump the CBC. I’m am now beginning to understand his reasoning for wanting to dump the CBC, between the ‘This Hour’ crew, CBC news channel, and even Rosie Barton(I’m not too impressed with her overall, not tough enough on the dippers), they never let up going after Trudeau either.. NDP for 2015, be careful what you wish for, and I’m still not sold on these pols, because they only drown out policy statements during elections, just what the dippers and cons are hoping for, smoke and mirrors, with a touch of anger and attacks.

Nonsense. Newman’s been the eminent Canadian historian of note for more than 50 years, and with more than 30 books to his name. It took me 3 seconds to wiki that, Carpet Bloomer. I’ve read a bunch of his stuff and although they’re not always great reads, he is uniquely placed to give a legacy perspective on where, how and why the modern Liberal Party has gone wrong. He’s not a natural-born critic of the Party, and that’s why I think this article is remarkable.

I don’t judge an authors book by its cover, I judge them on their character, and from this read, I think he lacks character, and is as vindictive as any other author who thinks because they write 30 books, gives them the right slander someone because they don’t jive with their politics, he is washed up old curmudgeon, like a few others I’ve read. Trudeau has modernized the liberal party to try and prevent the kind of back stabbing that caused the liberals to become out of touch with the country, like the present government. and as far as his sudden bewitchment with Mulcair goes, it also explains his bad judgement when it comes to a person character, Mulcair is a Jekyll and Hyde just like Harper, but it seems easier now to take pot shots at Trudeau because he moved the liberal party out of the dungeons and into the sunlight..

No. It has already come. The party was running on fumes when he took over. They were begging people to run as candidates in some ridings and they had no infrastructure, no ground game and no money.

All that has changed. Trudeau is responsible for that. They do not have to win the election for that to be true. In fact it was never likely he was going to bring the party back from fewer than 50 seats to government in one election. All he has to do is increase the seat count.

Gordon Gibson, who was a former senior aide to Pierre Trudeau as well as a former leader of the B.C. Liberals, put the essential problem most succinctly: “The Liberal party is in great danger of becoming an irrelevance. Alas, that assumes there is still something called the Liberal party. What used to be a genuine, large and co-operative organization of like-minded people has been turned into an empty shell by centralizing leaders, and is now populated largely by celebrity followers and power seekers.”

And what happened, because the media didn’t ask tough questions, we got a dead man walking the next day(jack Layton) as a leader of the opposition party, you call that good media coverage of elections or the MSM covering up stories. I say the MSM covering up, forget about policy and what is right for the country, lets elect a dead man walking. The same will happen again this election, if the polling is in the MSM better interest again this election, voters will loose, not the party that comes to power with nothing to offer only dreams. The MSM are robbing the voters of the truth every election.

Emily, your entire contribution to this site is one long drive by smear…….which would be fine if you were the least bit interesting; or even occassionally correct. Such has not be the case in my experience.

You go on:

“b) Wells is a very literal person and doesn’t know the Senate line is common across the country. Same as the phrase ‘when I win the lottery”

The difference of course, is that Paul is striving for accuracy, and you are just dribbling at the mouth.

More Emily:
“c) There are people who have been posting here twice as long as I have. They’ve never had a correct statistic or a correct political/historical post in their lives.”

And yet, they still manage to produce more accurate and articulate contributions to this site than do you. Your insistence that other posters’ are incorrect, or don’t know history, is just evidence that you don’t really do any research that may contradict your own preconceived notions. Emily, you have been wrong in about 98% of everything you post. But at least you are consistent.

more Emily:
“d) They are rude, profane.. ..and right-wing. And they post constantly”

Thanks for the clarification Paul Wells. While we always appreciate your input (that is all of us except EmilyOne), your wasting your intelligent commentary on Emily. She/he will never admit to a mistake.

He’s not attacking Emily the female, sweetheart, so stop trying to hide behind your own skirt (or is it an apron?). He simply took a few seconds to grind his heel on an annoying insect. And we all wish he’d do it more often. I like how he got you to admit that your Senate comment was nothing more than the mindless regurgitation of a meaningless throw-away line oft-repeated on the Internet. He handily made a fool of you and as usual, you’re the last to know.

That full-time residency jab really got to you eh? Ah well, it’s not like it’s inaccurate. Maybe we are a bit rough on you though. It’s clear that the Maclean’s comments section is so much more important to you than to anyone else; it is obviously a huge part of your life. Maybe we should be more sensitive to the fact that for us it’s just some meaningless diversion. For you, it’s a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Maybe the only reason. Now I feel guilty. :(

Whoa!
A very insightful historical summary of the political equivalent of the Titanic.
Liberal hubris and sense of entitlement is at the very core of the self-destruction of the Liberal party.
and they still don’t get it.
Their provincial regimes will soon collapse from the weight of their corruption and multi-layered cover-ups.
Here in BC the profoundly corrupt BC Liberal regime is an albatross around Justin’s neck – and Wynne’s cynical regime is faltering badly.
In Alberta the record of the Notley NDP is impressive.
In just a few months their motto could be: “Promises made – Promises kept” – a refreshing experience and example of long overdue reforms being quickly and smoothly introduced.
An antidote to the growing apathy and poisonous cynicism fostered by the corporate media as a tool for voter suppression.
Justin’s welcoming of lifelong right wing Conservative Eve Adams into his caucus, and the cynical support for Harper’s terror bill, C-51 served as blatant examples of a politician who claims to be “progressive” and “doing politics differently” when he is neither.

Your final paragraph: “Justin’s welcoming of lifelong right wing Conservative Eve Adams into his caucus, and the cynical support for Harper’s terror bill, C-51 served as blatant examples of a politician who claims to be “progressive” and “doing politics differently” when he is neither.”

I had exactly the same reaction. These two things, and the exclusion of the Senators from his caucus. The name is, apparently, sacred and, because of that, I have not heard or seen the word “sleazy” applied to any of his actions so far in the campaign. But that, indeed, is what they are.

“Liberal hubris and sense of entitlement is at the very core of the self-destruction of the Liberal party.
and they still don’t get it.”
Well put R.F. It runs deep in their veins at the grassroots level too, to the extent that against all evidence some who extol ABC voting still believe it should automatically mean a vote for the Liberals. So last century.

You don’t have to be wholly partisan to see that the hubris of the LPC could easily be their downfall. Trudeau is not a very bright man, not by a long shot. Just watch him and listen to him speak. His statements are dumbed down not for his audience, but for him. That said, the ultimate expression of Liberal arrogance was the leadership of Stephane Dion. In a country that supposedly subscribes to the mistaken belief that our governors should be fluently bilingual (so as to be able to communicate with the 8% of the nation who are unilingually French), the Librano’s selected a leader who was completely unable to communicate in any fashion with the 80% of the nation who are unilingually English.
This was either full blown stupidity or full blown arrogance, on steroids. There are no other plausible explanations.

Someone, (I believe it was Peter Newman but no guarantee) once said that there are certain moments that define an aspiring political leader as ‘a loser’. For Robert Stanfield it was his fumbling a football thrown to him, for Joe Clark, his near-impaling himself in Africa on a bayonet of a guard of honour. For Justin Trudeau, all you will have to do is to go through clips of his last week on a campaign trail. Anyone of them will do.

What an incoherent and intellectually lazy article. I mean, by all means let’s discuss the flaws and failings of Justin Trudeau (I could write several articles on the topic!) but can we actually root the criticisms in something remotely concrete?

He’s arrogant and is just waiting to take his turn in power. Really? Ok, what are the examples? None. Oh.
What none sense. It’s just like the ludicrous claims that Harper is an ultra rightwing ideologue. Really? Where are the examples? None. You could scarcely make the claim he’s conservative. He’s a self-serving control freak who is driven to seek and cling to power, for the sake of power. That is the only thing his actions in government actually provide evidence of.

I get that this writer doesn’t like Trudeau. That’s okay. Me neither. But it doesn’t work to just make up failings and then try and project them upon someone. And why would you when there’s so many real ones available? What about his annoying breathy delivery? His terrible decision on Eve Adams? His naive misunderstanding on the threat of Jihadists and Islamism. His awkwardness when pressured?

There’s real meat out there. All four of the party leaders have significant and real failings worthy of criticism. It’s silly and pointless when people (let alone journalists) make ones up.

How can you possibly say he has revived the Liberal party?? They were 3rd last time and they will be 3rd again. And his inability to articulate, act on his feet or demonstrate much intellectual capability has been his hall mark. This is analogous to when Olivia Chow ran for Toronto Mayor-the more she spoke and showed how shallow she was, the further she fell. Justin has his father’s name and that’s where it all ends.

This author is writing an article, not a novel. We who follow politics don’t need to be continuously fed with details and examples…. we know what the author is talking about. Some of us may not agree, but I certainly don’t see how he’s ‘making stuff up’. He’s just expressing opinions based on observations – many of which you’ve failed to notice.

Seriously? Taking shots at someone’s advanced age? Could you be any more douchey? Seems to be a Liberal trait as of late. Pupatello (Wynne’s runner-up in the last Ontario Liberal leadership race) made similar comments toward an 82 year old city councilor two weeks ago. Said he was “well past his expiry date,” all because he dared question some of the $3 million her consulting firm spent on behalf of the city of Windsor and its taxpayers.

The Conservatives aren’t going to be in power forever. When they are voted out, I do NOT want to see an NDP government. However, if you Liberals keep acting like such arrogant, pompous, petty, spoiled brats with chronic entitlement issues, we will end up with an NDP government, either this election or next, and the whole country will be screwed. So how about getting your act together, OK? You’re running out of time.

Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper believe that rich people should have my tax dollars to help them raise their children – even those with trust funds. Oddly enough, it is the candidate who grew up with a trust fund who understands how stupid that is.

As a childless spinster, I’m sure you don’t quite grasp who difficult it is to raise a kid….but you may want to check your data. Parents….pay a LOT of taxes. The government is not giving money to them…it is GIVING IT BACK to most of them, and providing it to those who need it whether they pay taxes or not.

You are a self-confessed Liberal, so you appear to favour using tax dollars to fund heroin injection sites, sex-change operations, and welfare for life (as long as they vote Liberal)…and yet, you begrudge those who get money who may actually use it in the way they see fit. Liberals aren’t concerned about actual people…they are concerened about themselves having power over telling people who they will live.

Just go crawl back into your (no doubt Government funded) cubicle and wait until October to have your say.

Let’s just recognize that you think poor people should subsidize the rich, and I don’t. Hence, you vote for Harper or Mulcair, who share your values on this, and I vote for Trudeau, who shares mt belief that rich people don’t need tax dollars to help raise their children.

The poor are subsidized by everyone….you are simply ticked that some people you consider to be rich are getting some of their own money back. In fact, you should be thanking those of us who shell out tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes to help pay for the poor; you shouldn’t be jealous or upset that we are seeing a small fraction taken from us returned.

So someone who makes less than Trudeau is less entitled to have “their” money back because they don’t have kids? Is it any less “their” money just because they don’t have children? Are parents they less entitled to have more of “their” money back, because even though they may need more money than Trudeau, they won’t get it because he still gets his?

And you really don’t understand what “poor” means. But then you don’t understand much, so I’m not surprised.

Let the record show that James Halifax thinks taxpayers should subsidize Justin Trudeau’s children, even though Justin Trudeau doesn’t.

Gayle can’t really refute anything in the argument I made….so she creates her own argument, and debates herself.

speaking of “for the record”…….I was once what some economists would consider “poor” as in…I didn’t have much. The difference of course, is that unlike Gayle, and many others’ I made the correct decisions, worked hard, saved, invested….etc..etc…and I’m no longer poor. In fact, I pay a whack of taxes every year to help out other folks who still are.

here’s the thing Gayle…when you look at stats of who is poor, you need to remember a few things.

Most people who are “poor” in the economic sense will not remain poor. They are victims of youth, moreso than poverty. As you get older, you will accumulate assets.

Most rich, or well off people today…started out with nothing. Trudeau however, started out rich, and has remained rich.

If someone is considered “poor” in their teens, and are still “poor” by the time they hit their late 20’s…they’re making the wrong decisions.

Most folks who remain poor (in Canada) throughout their lives…..have no one to blame but themselves. That does’t mean you have to be rich to be successful……but you should at least be able to afford to pay your own bills.

Here I was thinking we were discussing the wisdom of a plan that allows rich people to have tax dollars to raise their children. I didn’t know that my insistence on sticking to that topic meant I was changing the channel from the Halifax definition of poverty, success, and how he alone determines which is which and who to blame for being poor.

“Here I was thinking we were discussing the wisdom of a plan that allows rich people to have tax dollars to raise their children.”

Again, your lack of complexity is obvious. We are not discussing a Law that will allow rich people to have tax dollars to raise their children. We are discussing a law that will see people with kids have some of their OWN MONEY BACK in most cases. Taxes do not originate with GOVERNMENT. It is money taken from US. This law gives some back, and for those who don’t pay taxes, it provides some to help pay the bills. Your problem, is that you don’t want tax dollars going to someone you deem unworthy due to their financial situation; in this case, folks who may not need it.

if it makes you feel better…..I’ll dispel your notions somewhat, so that you realize someone who you deem “RICH” won’t get the benefit you seem to think they will see. As the payments are “TAXABLE”…the folks you consider rich will see a lot of that money clawed back and put back into the Central fund, while those you consider “poor” will keep all of it.

Do you get it yet? (didn’t think so)

“I didn’t know that my insistence on sticking to that topic meant I was changing the channel from the Halifax definition of poverty, success, and how he alone determines which is which and who to blame for being poor.”

Gayle, you didn’t STICK to any topic…you created your own. But as an admitted Liberal, you are not surprising me. I”ve found most Liberals to be challenged when asked to actually debate something critically. You can’t help yourself. You already know all the answers, and must find it tediouos having to correct us all of the time.

The NDP is the new Liberal Party. They’re going much the same direction with their platforms, if you can say the Libs have a platform. I label them both as left of centre, by some distance from the centre line. MacKenzie King donated money to Harvard to establish the Canada Club. Liberals have been closely associated with Harvard since then (Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, Michael Ignatieff, Stephan Dion, Dalton McGuinty, even Justin Trudeau), and Harvard has been trying to influence Canada through the Libs, for decades. Now consider that Harvard believes in the one-world-government concept, and that the LPC, and including the OLP, have been working toward socialism and the one-world-gov’t, for years. The main leverage they’ve been using is the anthropogenic climate change mechanism. This belief that fossil fuels are responsible for climate change has been proven absolutely ficticious. But it makes for a convincing motive to move closer to one world government, AKA, the U.N.

Mulcair has also jumped on board with the “fossil fuel–climate change” bandwagon. I don’t believe he has the same motive as the Libs. When the NDP finally achieves the status of governing Canada, they won’t realistically want to give up their newly-found power. So Mulcair is likely spouting “climate change” policy in hopes of capturing the emotionally inspired climate fear that has been planted in the minds of the gullible, and the majority of voters. Indeed, Mulcair has stolen the Liberal identity from the Liberal Party right from underneath their noses, and while their eyes were open, and Justin never saw it happen. That’s my take on just how arrogant, and out of touch the LPC really is. Remember Mr. Magoo? He’s alive and well, and leading the LPC today.

The problem with the article is with the author who seems to suffer from the same syndrome he
accuses the Liberals of, the apparently belief that he is divinely right and everybody else is wrong.
If the Liberals have a true Achilles heal, it is that they assume everybody knows they are right
and therefore there is no need to fight back……. in the end, people will get it.
Michael Dukakis made the same mistake running for the Presidency of the USA against Ronald Reagan. He thought he was right, and he was, the problem is that he let Reagan portray him as not right and not competent and because he did not fight back ,he lost the election.
That is Trudeau and the Liberal party’s problem. They are not fighting back, As of now the best they can hope for is Official Opposition status if Harper completely looses to the NDP which is highly likely.

It’s disgusting that this is coming out now just as the longtime ruling party is failing badly in it’s attempts to stay in power – in a quite arraogant way, may I add. The Liberal party is an important Canadian institution and to dismiss it with such an inaccurate and biased analysis is beneath contempt. Shame on MacLean’s for it’s engrained partisan bias.

In the end they have set out to destroy Canada as we once knew it through multi-culturalism.

All you have to do is look the socialist mistakes of Euro countries –

1. London, (the locals now call it Londonistan) which has recently announced there are plans to put 5,000 troops on the streets to protect the resident citizenry,

2. Paris which has more than 15,000 troops on the streets to protect its resident citizenry and

4. All of Sweden which is having serious cultural problems and is now the rape capital of Europe with more than 25% of female resident populations having experienced some sort of sexual attack – and….

Oops – Let’s not forget Greece having more than 28,000 illegals entering her country within the past 20 days and no plan to actually remove them back to their original home as it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Multiculturalism – Make it to our shores and Justin will feed you forever.

All part of the Lieberal plan to destroy Canada. It is coming here – and it all started with that POS Trudeau the first – and Trudeau lite will make it even worse.

But FIRST!!

We need to send warm coats to Syria – winter is not far off. LOL

That will allow the citizen of France to become our newest PM – God help us all if that happens.

Now I will wait for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from entitled Lieberal supporters along with the usual declarations of me being racist, homophobic and against immigration.

In reality I am a realist – I see what is happening in the new Eurabia and Canucks have no idea how fast it will get here. Do your due diligence folks and do the research – then realize it all started with those POS Lieberals.

Their arrogance will allow them to not only continue this destructive path, but expand it and make it worse!!

Have you ever considered actually informing yourself before you post such absolute nonsense. It took me 5 minutes to find out each of your assertions is utterly false. I don’t have to call you a racist – you do that yourself.

What he wrote was largely true. I can’t confirm if his figures are actually correct, but I have been to all of the countries he writes of…..and it is most definitely a problem. Mainly due to Muslim / North African refugees and immigrants. You would not be safe to walk the streets in the areas he describes. But please, if you still disagree……..plan one of those areas as your next vacation spot.

Isn’t this the same Peter C Newman who wrote a book predicting the end of the Liberal Party?

Aren’t there professional standards of disclosure for writing editorials that further a journalist’s economic self-interest? Isn’t there a conflict of interest here, when a “journalist” uses his employer’s platform in order to put forward an opinion that furthers the sale of his book?

Hmmm…not sure what happened to Peter but surely it’s time to get over it.
Peter points out: “The Liberal party’s operational code has always been in simplicity itself: to govern Canada by striking the most marketable balance between elitism and egalitarianism.” I would say that is still their program and I for one am all for it. If Justin is the Liberal leader then so be it — it is far far better than having Stephen Harper and his pack of trained seals (and of course the Boys in Short Pants) running the country and slow but steadily dismantling everything that has made Canada the envy of the world. Come on, Peter, there are lots of substantive issues to comment on. Make yourself useful!

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.